Hi, I noticed you reverted my change on the "Stimulant Use" section in the Carl Lewis page, saying I removed content and I didn't really extend it. Where is the evidence of that? Which information I removed?
Everything I added was relevant to the controversy, properly documented and was missing in the section. Please justify.

Hi, your edit removed cited information from reliable sources, including this passage "It was revealed that Lewis tested positive three times before the 1988 Olympics for pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, banned stimulants and bronchodilators also found in cold medication, and had been banned from the Seoul Olympics and from competition for six months. The USOC accepted his claim of inadvertent use and overturned the decision. Fellow Santa Monica Track Club teammates Joe DeLoach and Floyd Heard were also found to have the same banned stimulants in their systems, and were cleared to compete for the same reason.[1][2]" BearMan998 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I think you you are mistaken. The diff tool on the left marks it as removed but on the right it adds it again in the reworked paragraph I wrote. I couldn't just add information without moving a bit the sentences around, otherwise it would have become poorly readable. I didn't remove any information or any cited information. Please check again carefully and, in case you haven't any other objection, revert your change.

Hello BearMan. Regarding the Carl Lewis page and my change you promptly reverted:
What Sports Illustrated claims is that those substances are often found in cold medicines (which is an observation that many people do). It doesn't say he ingested a cold medicine or that the documents proved that. The Los Angeles Times reports Carl Lewis' words on the incriminated supplement and he said it was a dietary supplement in the form of pills. Baaron Pittenger who was executive director of USOC at the time confirmed that he asked for those pills to have them examined. Moreover the Los Angeles Times put his hands on the USOC documents related to Lewis' case and didn't find any clue about cold medicines. That strongly suggests the cold medicine story is some sort of urban myth born from general comments over the banned stimulants.
Besides that also the story of stimulants used as masking agents for steroids sounds like another urban myth. For three reasons:
1) The guardian article is the only source vaguely reporting it
2) There is not any evidence or consensus in scientific literature
3) Modern antidpoing rules don't punish levels of stimulants in the same range found in Lewis. That seems to me pretty explanatory that those levels can't act as masking agents in any way. Otherwise they'd be in the banned range, wouldn't they?
Unless you can find a reliable source that explains in which contexts (covering Lewis case also) stimulants are masking agents for steroids would you mind restore my change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJCasual (talk • contribs) 18:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed Lewis' defense to an herbal supplement per the LA Times source, however, I am hesitant to change the statement that the stimulants could be a masking agent as that claim is sourced in relation to Carl Lewis and I don't see another reliable source disapproving it. BearMan998 (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Every source talking about doping and stimulants claims they temporary affect physical and mental performance and they are banned to certain levels because of that, not because they are masking agents. Diuretics instead are often referred as masking agents and are banned for that reason. So there is no reason to disprove something that is not proven. The fact that scientific papers discussing the effects of stimulants in sports do not spend a word on their action as masking agents simply tells you there is not background for that. Moreover you are willing to give credit to a journalist who is the only one claiming that and whose field of expertise most likely is not even medicine. That is not enough to support such statement. In the scientific world truth is built around experiments and consensus, not around the unsourced opinion of a Guardian journalist. That's the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJCasual (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The journalist never makes that claim, but instead references that some experts believe that the combination of chemical found on Lewis could be have been utilized to mask anabolic steroids. If there is a reliable source providing a counterclaim to this specifically in regards to the Lewis case, that can be included in the article BearMan998 (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Claims like "someone said that ..." without specifying "who", "when" or "where" are unacceptable sources of truth and are not compliant to the standards of an Encyclopedia. They are maybe good for a talk at the pub. I already provided a reliable unbiased link that gets the facts straight and that applies to Lewis' case as well. Documented Wikipedia pages on such subject also confirm that. How many references should I still cite to make clear there is a remarkable difference between a masking agent and a stimulant? Or do we want to leave this story of the masking agents just to subtly suggest Carl Lewis was on steroids because we like it that way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJCasual (talk • contribs) 21:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, if there is a reliable source providing a counterclaim to this specifically in regards to the Lewis case, that can be included in the article. Nothing you have cited refers specifically to the Lewis case. BearMan998 (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean that if a Guardian journalist writes that "someone believes Abraham Lincoln was an alien" I have to find a counterclaim that specifically says "indeed he was not an alien"? Who would bother writing that Lincoln wasn't an alien? Who would bother writing that stimulants aren't masking agents (moreover citing a certain Carl Lewis in the same source) if nobody demonstrated they are? Your request is not sensible. Would you explain me why the information of the Munich university doesn't apply to Lewis? Is he a special case for which stimulants magically become masking agents as well? It implicitly refers to Lewis case because those are the effects on the human body and it seems to me that Carl Lewis is classified as a human being. Would you please provide a piece of evidence why you believe the Guardian is saying something that can be verified? If it can't be verified and it is isolated (and these are the problems with that source) then it can't be considered a valid source and it is not compliant to Wikipedia requirements. In conclusion that means it must be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJCasual (talk • contribs) 23:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Well for one a Guardian journalist did not say someone believes Abraham Lincoln was an alien. The Guardian article states that "Exum released more than 30,000 pages of documents which include showing Lewis tested positive for three stimulants found in cold medications: pseudoephedrine, ephedrine and phenylpropanolamine. Lewis's training partners DeLoach and Floyd Heard tested positive for the same combination of drugs, which some experts believe can mask more serious drugs such as anabolic steroids." If this is so overtly false as you claim, then I'm sure there would have been a libel suit filed and won by Lewis, with the Guardian retracting this. BearMan998 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The story of the alien was obviously a supposition, not a statement. I am not disputing the whole statement you reported but only the masking agent/stimulant connection, which is a subject that is not specifically related to Carl Lewis. Carl Lewis has been bashed with thousand dubious stories by the press for ages and never sued anyone. That is not his way. Moreover would be just silly to sue the press just for some speculation regarding a subject of biology. Does he really need that? Most likely he never read that article either. That said your conjecture doesn't prove the claim over masking agents is true and once more you failed in telling me why on the other hand the information coming from the university of Munchen is not related to the Carl Lewis case. It talks about stimulants and masking agents in sport, doesn't it? If you don't like that university, I can provide you tons of links that remark a clear cut distinction between stimulants and masking agents:

All these links report the same information and there is no link between stimulants/masking agents. They are two distinct categories. I'd add the scientific explanation on how stimulants and masking agents work give such evidence that you can have hardly imagine an expert claiming that they are related. The tables and classifications you can read in the above links come out from medicine scientists and they have the consensus of the scientific community.
Here it is the list of banned masking agents from WADA:

Can you spot the name of a chemical substance related to the class of stimulants? I remind you that we are talking about science here and there is no edge for opinions and beliefs and you can't demonstrate stimulants are masking agents because Lewis didn't sue the Guardian.
There is no doubt the statement in the Guardian article is bogus and falls in the sphere of speculation and urban myths.
But to tell the truth I found an article that linked stimulants and masking agents. Guess what, it still was Duncan MacKay for the Guardian...
Would you please restore my edit as there is no valid reason or argument to revert it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJCasual (talk • contribs) 01:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is not how Wikipedia works. Can you find a source that directly refers to the Lewis case and the Guardian article? Otherwise, the position you are advancing with the links you are posting are just WP:SYN. BearMan998 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. You pointed out "Synthesis of published material that advances a position" which advises not to combine two reliable sources A and B to obtain a new original undocumented statement C. In our talk I am disputing the reliability of an undocumented claim in source A and I have provided you evidence to support that with a certain number of B sources while you couldn't provide anything that corroborates the source A claim. There is no C in our discussion. The dispute is whether stimulants are scientifically accepted (or "believed" if you want) as masking agents or not and it is something that doesn't relate to Carl Lewis or the Guardian. My remarks are indeed compliant to the Wikipedia standards according to Wikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Medical_claimsWikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Academic_consensusWikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations. If we can't have an agreement on that I'm going to open a dispute resolution. On the other hand if you can show me there is indeed a built consensus in the scientific community about stimulants acting as masking agents then I'll comfortably accept that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJCasual (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The article never states that all stimulants are masking agents, it states that the particular combination of chemicals found in Lewis has potential to mask more serious drugs. Just that particular combination found on Lewis. For you to say that the Guardian article is making a blanket statement that all stimulants are masking agents is incorrect, and your combination of taking that incorrect conclusion and combining it with links on stimulants with nothing to do with the Lewis case is in fact WP:SYN. Feel free to take this to dispute resolution as my opinion has not changed. BearMan998 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I will as there is no point in sourcing a vague statement that is not verifiable and has not any link or reference elsewhere. And there is no hint anywhere about the combination of stimulants either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJCasual (talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. As result of the discussion at [1] it comes out that my objections are indeed correct. Would you please restore my edit? JJCasual (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion that Lewis used the stuff as a masking agent is contentious material about a living person. Since the current sourcing is, per the RSN discussion, inadequate for a MEDRS-related claim, I've gone ahead and removed it per BLPREMOVE and it should not be added back in until a MEDRS-qualified source is found for it. For the sake of full disclosure, let me note that I've become involved in this via this discussion on my talk page. I would not have become involved were it not for the BLPREMOVE considerations. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I had not checked for a few days so I wasn't able to respond, but if that is the consensus then I have no issue with it. BearMan998 (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)